- This topic has 26 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
Anonymous.
Anonymous.-
Posts
-
Anonymous
I’d like to hear what everyone thinks about a 2007 SSS contest. Warren and I discussed this a bit last evening.
I went back and found the original email that I sent which hatched this whole SSS thing. At the time, the thought was that we should truly “push the envelope”. Those on the list generally concurred that we’d have the right recipe if contestants had an approximately equal mix of shreds, lost rockets, and recovered rockets. That would show that we were on the cutting edge of things.
FWIW, I like the G80 contest as it is. We haven’t had the shreds, which is a good thing… but we have had a lot of lost rockets. Prohibiting tracking is an interesting twist, and it surely adds an element of difficulty.
I believe the lost SSS rockets will likely be found. This issue of getting them back to the LCO the same day does intensify things.
If we’d all flown at MHM, some of our 300 fellow flyers would almost assuredly have returned our rockets. This waiting-until-November thing, of which I am also guilty, does make things tough.
What should we do next year? I say we should do the very same contest. Thoughts?
JW
Chris LaPanse
Well, I would prefer to have tracking allowed. My dad and I searched for my rocket for more than 6 hours total, and honestly, having a tracker would eliminate much of the luck, making it much more of a contest of skill.
Other than that though, I think the same contest would be fine.
Anonymous
The reason we disallowed tracking for this particular contest was that several folks indicated that they felt those of us who used tracking had an unfair advantage. (Disclaimer – Many of you know that I use tracking on 90%+ of my flights). I would have used tracking on this flight had it been allowed.
Having tracking would have changed the contest in a huge number of ways this year; For example, carbon tubing would be tough to use because it is not radio transparent — so if you used carbon, you’d have to go with heavier materials for at least part of the rocket. Additionally, the tracker would likely not survive a streamer descent, which several folks employed. Finally, the tracker has a long antenna, meaning a longer airframe is probably needed. Roll all that together, and you get a rocket that is heavier, longer, etc. and it wouldn’t have gone near as high. Possibly not high enough… to need a tracker?
This is an interesting game of chess.
JW
Chris LaPanse
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would have used tracking in a heartbeat. Looking at some data, I could have probably fit a tracker into my airframe relatively easily (perhaps a slight extension would be needed, but nothing significant), and run the antenna into the plastic NC. As for damage, I could have easily fit a parachute had I not been as concerned about losing it. It is an interesting balancing act though…
Bruce R. Schaefer
You know, the old expression… “Put up or shut up?” Well, since I smashed my rocket into a wall carrying it up stairs the night before the launch, big mouth here, could not put it up. 🙁 I could have epoxied the fin back on, but that would have been unsafe. And from that point, it’s my call whether the rocket is safe to fly. And, it wasn’t. But I really like this contest and may actually get a rocket to a tower without destroying it next year. 🙂 I’ll just watch out for walls, and use CF. I have a great CF tube that I’d like to use, just a little over minimum diameter. I don’t care if anyone uses a transimitter or sonic device. I hate to see a MAWD bite the dust or get lost. Just my opinion… I’ll shut up now. 😉
Warren B. Musselman
Much as I’m bummed that my rocket is sitting unrecovered on the prairie, I have to agree with John (who core sampled his SSS bird). The lack of tracking is an issue that lends spice to the contest. However, I will disagree with him that the tracker transmitter won’t survive a streamer landing. In fact, I believe that the transmitter would have survived the recovery you had if you’d had it properly packaged in the bird.
Personally, I’d like to see the G80 Single Shot Sweepstakes repeated in ’07 with no change in rules. I’d also like to see the Super Single Shot Sweepstakes repeated. I have a bird for it, but it isn’t ready for this year. Congrats to Ed Dawson who so far has the only qualifying flight.
Warren
Chris LaPanse
I would love to see the SSSS again as well, although perhaps spice it up next year and make the J570 the motor of choice?
If the SSS is repeated without tracking, I may just enter the SSSS instead. I don’t want to lose another altimeter 🙄
Also, I need a good excuse to make some 38mm CF tubing and a full on, performance 38mm bird 😉 8)
Warren B. Musselman
You KNOW our birds are all going to turn up… and I can tell you that I had two RRC2X’s that laid in the sun for 16 months and they both work fine.
Warren
Bruce R. Schaefer
Okay, while I promised to shut up… 🙂 c’mon, guys… in time all rockets and altimeters will be found. The contest is great. Warren, keep ’em as they are.
Ed Dawson
I really liked having the two versions of the SSC.
This way we can cater to both those that want to keep the costs down as well as have a higher performance challenge. Something to stimulate the creativity and force us to push a little harder. Altitude junkies can always enter both.
In terms of creativity, what about a contest that is the most altitude for a given amount of Newton-seconds. For example, how many feet can you get for 3000Ns – any number of rockets, any number of motors – as long as it does not exceed the given limit. You would have to declare all your planned shots in advance and any misses or catos cannot be repeated.
I would have to think this through a little further, but perhaps there is a contest here. Another idea could be that you could only use one of each letter class (so you don’t fly 50 G motors – but maybey that’s good).
Thoughts???
Anonymous
Chris LaPanse
Bruce R. Schaefer
Warren B. Musselman
Ed Dawson
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.